- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
23 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmfEven though I have never been a non-believer I am able to try to see things from your perspective. You on the other hand can't seem to see things from a Christian perspective even if you were a Christian for decades. From your current perspective morality is subjective. That means it is impossible for you to make objective moral judgements. Which means that even if you do believe it is wrong to stone gays at this point in time you cannot get yourself to say that it is objectively wrong, even though you do believe that it is wrong regardless of what anyone else may say about it.
I have already given you my response to this request. If you want to probe my current beliefs as a non-believer, be my guest.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou've said all this kind of stuff before. When you attempt to demonstrate that you understand what my stance is, you completely misrepresent it, pretend you don't understand it, or pretend you haven't read what I've written. So I think you're either deluding yourself when you claim you that you understand my stance or you are trolling.
Even though I have never been a non-believer I am able to try to see things from your perspective. You on the other hand can't seem to see things from a Christian perspective even if you were a Christian for decades. From your current perspective morality is subjective. That means it is impossible for you to make objective moral judgements. Which means th ...[text shortened]... ng, even though you do believe that it is wrong regardless of what anyone else may say about it.
23 Nov 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIf there were a god or gods then their morality would also be subjective.
What you are saying is true assuming God does not exist, has not created all of us and has not revealed to us how we ought to live. If you were to assume that God exists and that the Bible is in fact His revelation to us, would you still say that morality is subjective?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe have already discussed the source, nature, purpose and application of moral codes. Why are asking me to repeat myself?
If there is no 'objective wrong' then you cannot say that the stoning of gays is objectively wrong.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou don’t seem to have understood or even read most of what I have said. I think it is an affectation on your part.
I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I am merely making an observation about your morals.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmf
If your god figure deemed it morally sound for his followers to kill gays, and now he doesn't deem it morally sound, is that not a change?
If your god figure deemed it morally sound for his followers to kill gays, and now he doesn't deem it morally sound, is that not a change?
No, this kind of "gotcha!" question does not prove God's attitude toward the physical action of a man lying with a man for sex has changed.
I said something more of His mind concerning our sins is revealed in the progressive revelation of God.
Your Creator condemns a man lying with a man for sex in Leviticus 18:22 then and also today.
Something further in the revelation of God's salvation must be revealed by Him.
Sorry FMF. Your Creator didn't give you a book which has only three lines - like
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Stone gays.
The End."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The gradual and progressive unveiling of God's nature is not appreciated by some people.
The proclamation of this is important.
"God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son ..." (Heb. 1:1,2a)
God spoke in the past.
God speaks more "in the Son".
The Son of God in all He was and did and spoke is the further speaking of God.
God spoke in the law of Moses about the execution of the adulterer by stoning.
Latter "in the Son" in what He was and did and said, God speaks again.
He reveals more of His nature and heart.
"He who is without sin among you let him be the first to cast a stone at her." (John 8:7)
God didn't change in His condemnation of adultery.
God further revealed that He as a Man, as God incarnate in Jesus Christ, was really the only one really qualified by His righteousness to not be hypocritical in judgement.
The eager religious crowd, each of them, were just as guilty as the woman caught in adultery. This is further revelation. This is God unveiling more of His plan of salvation.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
" You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you ..." (Matt. 5:27,28a)
God spoke about adultery in the prophets. God is now incarnate in the Jesus Christ. And He has a further word on the matter.
"You have heard ... "
They had heard it from Mt. Sinai, from Moses, from God when He brought the Isrealites out of Egypt by miraculous judgments. There would be stoning for the act of adultery with two or more witnesses.
In the last of these days God spoke more and again "in the Son".
"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.
But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27,28)
Paraphrase - " Yes My Father told you to stone the adulterous woman. But all of you know in your conscience that you've sinned. Not a one of you is righteously qualified to execute anyone. "
Beginning with the older ones they began to slink away.
The younger impetuous ones who had not lived long enough perhaps, left last.
There is no "Gotcha!" here "See, God changed!"
There is God's further revelation of Himself in the incarnation of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by @sonshipThe question you are dodging is not about whether your god figure disapproves of gays; it's about whether executing gays was once deemed morally sound while it is no longer deemed morally sound. There is no need for you to concoct a question different from mine and answer that instead. Has the morality of executing gays changed?If your god figure deemed it morally sound for his followers to kill gays, and now he doesn't deem it morally sound, is that not a change?
No, this kind of "gotcha!" question does not prove God's attitude toward the physical action of a man lying with a man for sex has changed.
I said something [b] more of His mind concer ...[text shortened]... lines - like
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Stone gays.
The End."[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Now a little diversion. John is peculiar in recording the details of chapter 8. He says that Jesus stooped down quite calmly and wrote in the sand as the mob was pressing Him about the stoning.
No one knows what He was writing or drawing there. I appreciate the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Told" in their artistic imagination. They had it that Jesus was writing something which each old man read concerning his very own personal sins.
But this is artistic license. What do you think Jesus was drawing in the sand?
I don't know.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
What was Jesus writing in the dust of the ground there ??
But one thing may be indicated. They said the Moses said this or that at God's command. And the ten commandments were written on the tablets by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18).
It COULD BE that Jesus was subtly indicating the He was the very self same God Who had written the ten commandments on the tablets given to Moses.
"Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What then do you say?
But they said this to tempt Him, so that they might have reason to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote with His finger on the ground.
But when they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.
And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
And when they heard that, the went out one by one, beginning with the older ones. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman stood where she was, in the midst." (John 8:5-9)
Maybe the Son of God was signaling to those who could grasp it, that He was God who spoke to Moses, now incarnated as the Savior and Lord Jesus of Nazareth.
Do you think some fishermen from Galilee made this stuff up?
Not me. I think Jesus Christ is too wonderful to not have been real.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @wolfgang59There seems to be a dichotomy set up by some that if morality is universal then it cannot be personal. And if it is personal it cannot be universal.
If there were a god or gods then their morality would also be subjective.
I think you should contemplate that the dichotomy is not true ultimately with no exception.
There may be a fear that universal morality will not be able to deal with very intensely personal cases. Difficult moral situations exist. Very difficult ethical situations, no one denies.
As there are difficult mathematical problems yet universal laws of mathematics, so why could there not be difficult moral problems yet still universal morality?
I would suggest that some of you reconsider that big questions on morality could be both of a universal nature and also of individual nature. This could be true and yet we recognize that some moral issues are very fine, paradoxical, and difficult.
Like, say, you and your child and your mother are all in a boat. The boat tips over and all of you fall into the water. You can only save one other person. You have to decide -
"Should I rescue my dear old mother from dying?
Or should I rescue my young little child from dying?"
This is a difficult moral decision. I don't know the answer.
There are many others like it.
The trickiness of the matter, I don't think, makes it necessary to argue that universal morality cannot also be personal. We may not always have the wisdom to sort it out.
Does that mean that God could not know the answers?